Below is a new novel written just to remind our US and European 99% of women just what life for women in DARK AGES and Renaissance was like-----it was only these few centuries that 99% of women fought to gain freedoms, civil rights----all attacked by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----Jesse Burton studied at OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% OXFORD......Hmmmmmm, she know doubt is that global 1% STAR this time in acting and literature setting the FADS OF TODAY-----The reason we OUT our 5% STARS is this-----the actors/music guilds have always been tied to global banking----they create societal structures written by the global 1% ----not for 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE. We can love our STARS and the talent but we do not follow these 5% followers.
The statement that these global 1% Clinton neo-liberal women are doing nothing to fix these attacks on the rights of 99% of US women by simply outing the abusers and sending them away to become global investment firm rich-----is how we know these women are 5% PLAYERS. GILLIBRAND OF NY? FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
So, Franken exiled to become global banking rich while EMERGE WISCONSIN installs a PRETEND DEMOCRATIC candidate no doubt that MARXIST. Most women candidates we see are selling themselves as FAKE LEFT SOCIALISTS/MARXIST.
by Jessie Burton
Set in seventeenth century Amsterdam--a city ruled by glittering wealth and oppressive religion--a masterful debut steeped in atmosphere and shimmering with mystery, in the tradition of Emma Donoghue, Sarah Waters, and Sarah Dunant.
"There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed . . ."
in The United Kingdom
January 01, 1982
Jessie Burton studied at Oxford University and the Central School of Speech and Drama, where she appeared in productions of The House of Bernarda Alba, Othello, Play and Macbeth. In April 2013 her first novel,
It seems very likely that all this sudden attention to the rights of US women in workplace after these few decades of widespread abuse is MORE ABOUT TRANSITIONING from global 1% neo-liberalism using a US 5% player to morphing to far-right wing GLOBAL 1% LIBERTARIAN MARXISM with the installing of global 1% and their 2% to replace those dastardly US 5% white, black, and brown players.......
Franken's Out, But It's No Victory For Women
December 07, 2017 On Wednesday, the dam finally burst.
It began when six female Democratic senators — including two rumored 2020 presidential contenders — issued statements calling for Sen. Al Franken to resign over multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. One by one, their liberal Senate colleagues added their voices to the motion. By lunchtime, Franken’s office declared that the Minnesota senator would make an announcement about his political career the following day.
So here we are. Franken is gone. The Senate Ethics Committee will never be able to finish its investigation of Franken and the charges leveled against him.
This story was already a huge disappointment. Now, it’s a tragedy. The Democratic lawmakers who forced Franken’s resignation might think they’re courageously and selflessly standing up for women who’ve endured mistreatment at the hands of men in office. They’re not.
What the Democrats just did will make it even harder for mistreated women to hold their elected abusers accountable. For all the righteous liberal cheer and back-patting over Franken’s exit, the Democratic Party has failed to use this scandal to establish a protocol for investigating and punishing public officials who are accused of impropriety.
Franken, for all his faults, tried to steer the scandal in a direction that would end more fruitfully for almost everyone — even if that resolution included his stepping down. By summoning the Senate Ethics Committee and essentially saying, “come at me,” Franken set the stage for a procedure that would have determined the veracity of the charges against him, the severity of his transgressions and the proportional consequence for each of those transgressions. An accountability procedure like this has never existed in Congress. And now, thanks to the Democratic senators who decided to pull the plug on the Franken investigation, we’ll have to wait even longer for Washington to establish any sort of procedure for situations like this one.
Some will push back against the notion that sexual harassment or assault accusations against men like Franken need to be investigated. To examine any sort of accusation is to at least entertain the possibility the accuser might not be telling the truth. The #MeToo movement, which inspired and amplified the wave of charges against Franken, is a long-overdue rebellion against a male-centric culture that too often disbelieves and marginalizes women who have gut-wrenching stories to tell. The act of simply believing women is a pillar of the movement.
The Democratic Party has failed to use this scandal to establish a protocol for investigating and punishing public officials who are accused of impropriety
But belief only gets society so far. What happens next?
That’s the question the Franken scandal posed to America, and unfortunately, the abrupt resolution of that scandal has brought us nowhere close to finding an answer. This is not only a disservice to women, but an early Christmas gift to unrepentant sexual predators who have not been scrutinized or banished from office. That includes men like Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold and President Trump. Their alleged transgressions, which range from lewd comments to rape to pedophilia, will likely go unpunished because America still doesn’t know how to hold lawmakers accountable for any one of those acts.
The Democrats had an opportunity to reverse America’s tradition of letting powerful men get away with abusing women, and they blew it.
In the short-term, the lawmakers who demanded Franken’s resignation will score political points from the “progressives” who’ve been shouting loudest for Franken’s head since the first charges went public. This might be enough to boost a liberal senator’s national profile. But when the next legislator is called out by the #MeToo movement, there will be no blueprint for what to do. And without that blueprint, it will be easier for someone with malicious intent to plant fabricated charges against a standing politician. Project Veritas, a right-wing attack group, recently tried to do just that, only to be foiled by The Washington Post. Sooner or later, someone will try to do it again and succeed. When that happens — as soon as those charges are revealed as fake — the #MeToo movement’s political moment will be over. Women brave enough to come forward and name predatory lawmakers will be laughed and intimidated into silence.
Men like Roy Moore will have that last, bitter laugh.
Below we see from yesterday's posts a national political organization capturing WOMEN CANDIDATES RUNNING AS DEMOCRATS to global 1% far-right global corporate rule---the opposite of 99% WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Look at which states EMERGE takes jhold----LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, MARYLAND-----all southern all far-right global 1% -----now look at the northern states it has hold----CONNECTICUT----the bedroom state for NYC rich and global investment firms-----and WISCONSIN which sadly has been captured solidly by global 1% far-right wing whether CLINTON/BUSH ----
the OLD WORLD JEWISH AND CATHOLIC GLOBAL 1% MERCHANTS OF VENICE are capturing the PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICAL VOICE OF 99% OF US WOMEN.
'The Democratic Party has failed to use this scandal to establish a protocol for investigating and punishing public officials who are accused of impropriety'
'Emerge Louisiana was proud to join Emerge Alabama, Emerge Connecticut, Emerge South Carolina and Emerge Wisconsin for new Executive Director training this week in our Nation's Capital'.
We have shouted these few decades that a BALDWIN IS A 5% WOMEN PLAYER----she is that 5% DISABLED PLAYER as well. We have known FEINGOLD is a great big global 1% banking far-right neo-liberal even as national media painted he, Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren as POPULISTS FIGHTING GLOBAL WALL STREET.
Wisconsin's Baldwin Calls for Franken to Resign
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, is calling for fellow Democratic Sen. Al Franken, of neighboring Minnesota, to resign.Dec. 6, 2017, at 12:15 p.m
Wisconsin's Baldwin Calls for Franken to Resign
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, is calling for fellow Democratic Sen. Al Franken, of neighboring Minnesota, to resign.
Baldwin joined with other female Democratic senators Wednesday in calling for Franken to step down. Their demands for his resignation came after the two-term senator faced a fresh allegation that he forcibly tried to kiss a woman in 2006. He's also facing other allegations that he groped women.
Baldwin says on Twitter, "I believe it is best for Senator Franken to resign."
She had previously said she supported a Senate ethics investigation into his behavior.
We see nothing but global 1% far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty women in this photo----all worked these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to make sure all the gains of 99% of women----in wealth, rights, freedom were attacked and ignored as MOVING FORWARD rebuilt that global slave trade breaking apart global families----breaking apart US families-----and 99% OF WOMEN have suffered the most.
Each one of these CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL WOMEN have only the voice of global 1% of MEN. These women chose to be 5% players-----and their lives are no better than THE MINIATURIST. The MINIATURIST creates that environment where women are trapped into lives they cannot control---they cannot wake up or move freely with their own intentions.
Don't worry say these 5% to the 1% women----we will have the SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE look at this------ETHICS COMMITTEE ----OH, REALLY?
Democratic senators to Al Franken: Resign
By MJ Lee, CNN National Politics Reporter
Updated 10:25 AM ET, Thu December 7, 2017
(CNN)Embattled Sen. Al Franken will make an announcement Thursday, his office told reporters, as calls for the Minnesota Democrat's resignation -- led by female senators and later including party leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer -- rapidly gained momentum Wednesday.
Thirty-two Democratic senators -- 13 female and 19 male -- called on Franken to resign as allegations of sexual harassment against him continue to mount. Republican Sen. Susan Collins also called on Franken to quit.
In a statement on Facebook, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wrote: "While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."
Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Kamala Harris of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii also joined in the call for Franken to resign.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania was the first male Democratic senator to call on Franken to resign just after noon Wednesday. Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Tom Carper of Delaware, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio also called for Franken to step down. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois -- the Democratic whip -- also called on Franken to resign just before 1 p.m. ET. Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats, also called for him to resign.
"I consider Senator Franken a dear friend and greatly respect his accomplishments, but he has a higher obligation to his constituents and the Senate, and he should step down immediately," Schumer said in a statement that went out just before 5 p.m. ET.
A tweet from Franken's office after 6 p.m. ET said the senator had not yet made a decision on whether to resign and was "talking with his family."
Senator Franken is talking with his family at this time and plans to make an announcement in D.C. tomorrow. Any reports of a final decision are inaccurate.
— Sen. Al Franken (@SenFranken) December 6, 2017
The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating Franken following an account described by Leeann Tweeden, a morning news anchor on KABC radio in Los Angeles, which described Franken groping and forcibly kissing her during a USO tour in 2006, before Franken became a senator. After that initial account, several other women came forward to say Franken inappropriately touched them. Franken has repeatedly apologized about behavior that he said "crossed a line" for some women. The second-term senator has also said that he has taken thousands of photos with people over the years and that while he doesn't remember specific pictures or campaign events, any inappropriate behavior was unintentional.
At least six women -- three named and three unnamed -- have accused Franken of inappropriately touching them. The most recent accusation came in a Politico report Wednesday, in which, a woman who chose not to be identified alleged Franken tried to forcibly kiss her after a taping of his radio show in 2006. Franken released a statement categorically denying the accusation. "This allegation is categorically not true and the idea that I would claim this as my right as an entertainer is preposterous," the Minnesota senator said. "I look forward to fully cooperating with the ongoing ethics committee investigation." CNN has not verified the accusations in the Politico report.
A person familiar with the conversations told CNN Schumer called Franken after the Politico story published and told him he needed to step down. The person said Schumer subsequently had a series of conversations with Franken about stepping down throughout Wednesday.
The calls for Franken to resign come one day after Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan announced he would retire immediately. Conyers had also faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment by former employees, accusations Conyers vehemently he denied.
This week's discussion on public policy for women has a goal of JOINING 99% OF MEN AND WOMEN-----to fight the goal of global 1% to create TENSIONS between 99% of men and women---black, white, and brown citizens.
Any man would be DISINGENUOUS if he did not admit the atmosphere in any corporate setting to undermine women trying to break the GLASS CEILING. The competition to reach the CORPORATE EXECUTIVE position is ruthless---and women are subjected to any and all methods of FAILURE. When we shout a 5% player is a SOCIOPATH ---this is why. A woman having reached to global corporate executive has made clear she holds NO AFFECTION TO ANYONE----ESPECIALLY OTHER 99% OF WOMEN.
So, did all these women coming forward saying they were victims of sexual misconduct really face that MISCONDUCT?
WE ARE CERTAIN ANY WOMAN RISING TO EXECUTIVE STATUS INCLUDING POLITICAL AND MEDIA HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO FAILURE BY SEXUAL INTIMIDATION.
The question for 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE and especially 99% of women is this----WHY IS IT ALL COMING FORWARD RIGHT NOW from women in that 5% to the 1%?
We hear lots of 99% of men saying women are lying, cheating, stealing when they shout RAPE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT-----and this was were US women were before the 1960s-70s CIVIL RIGHTS/WOMEN'S RIGHTS/LABOR RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
We need our young adult women thinking all this TWERKING IS SEXUAL LIBERATION to understand that MOVING FORWARD has a goal of SEXUALIZING WOMEN......DEGRADING AND DIS-EMPOWERED.
RAPE OF WOMEN IS EPIDEMIC IN UK---US---and growing in Europe-----this occurs when third world extreme wealth extreme poverty takes societal structures to DARK AGES.
If we think how small the British Isles are in real estate and population ---this stat is SHOCKING---------------and in US this stat is growing to same level
'Why report on a phenomenon that is commonplace, affecting an estimated 85,000 women in England and Wales every year'?
If there were thousands of Jemma Beales out there, there’s little doubt in my mind that we’d know about it. But there aren’t. Right now there’s only one, which is why we know her name. Meanwhile the names of most rapists will be forgotten
- Friday 25 August 2017 14:45 BST
False allegations of rape are rare – rape itself is not. It’s understandable, then, that instances of the former are more likely to hit the headlines than the latter.
Why report on a phenomenon that is commonplace, affecting an estimated 85,000 women in England and Wales every year? Rape isn’t news. By contrast, criminal convictions for lying about rape, such as the 10-year sentence handed down to Jemma Beale, command our attention precisely because they are unusual.
Twenty five-year-old Beale, found guilty of four counts of perjury and four of perverting the course of justice, has made international news, with headlines describing her as “attention-seeking” and “a serial liar”. It’s hard not to detect the sense of relief that accompanies the sharing of reports on Beale’s crime.
“See?” the sharers seem to be saying. “We told you women lied about this stuff!” As the comedian Reginald D Hunter tweeted yesterday, “for people who question why we question, here ya’ go”
Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Lorraine-Smith argued that “these false allegations of rape, false allegations which will inevitably be widely publicised, are likely to have the perverse impact of increasing the likelihood of guilty men going free.”
Having duly undermined women’s faith in the justice system, Lorraine-Smith went on to claim that “cases such as this bring a real risk that a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted may not complain to the police for fear of not being believed.”
He’s right, of course. Every time a woman sees members of the judiciary and the press treating the conviction of one woman as damaging to the credibility of all women, she wonders what hope she might have of ever being believed.
It doesn’t matter that thousands upon thousands of rapists lie about rape without a single judge opining on how damaging this is to the real victims of false accusers. Beale must stand, potentially, for all women who accuse any man of rape, because that’s what the rape culture narrative demands. If Beale didn’t exist, the patriarchy would have to invent her (and most of the time it does).
Like most women, I cringe when I read of the actions of someone such as Beale. I despair at the fact that her conviction will be used as “proof” that rape is something about which women routinely lie, almost as though on a whim.
I don’t, however, believe that this is inevitable, or that women in general should feel any shame. Beale must be punished for what she has done, but that does not include “increasing the likelihood of guilty men going free”. No, Judge Lorraine-Smith. That’s on men like you, for reinforcing the idea that one very unusual case should have repercussions for victims of a far more common crime.
That 99 per cent of convicted sex offenders are male does not mean that most males are sex offenders. Nevertheless, it does indicate a connection between the construction of masculinity and sexual entitlement. Alas, it’s a connection that is so longstanding and so ingrained that it has become “just the way things are”. The maleness of sex offending is unremarkable, therefore it goes unremarked.
A woman lying about rape, on the other hand, is not “just the way things are”. There’s no common pattern of women inventing tales of rape in order to live a life of “bogus victimhood”. Yet when one woman does this, all women are expected to pay the price. I, for one, refuse to.
If there were thousands of Beales out there, there’s little doubt in my mind that we’d know about it. But there aren’t. Right now there’s only one, which is why we know her name. Meanwhile the names of most rapists will be forgotten (if they’re ever known at all).
One woman’s lies do not justify the discrediting of all future rape victims. Anyone who thinks otherwise is looking for a way to make rape appear far more rare than it actually is. I can’t help feeling those people are the ones we should treat with the most suspicion of all.
Theresa MAY is the face of UK POLITICS returning to MARGARET THATCHER-----Thatcher was REAGAN was global 1% banking neo-liberal taking British conservative party to neo-liberal empire-building------so, we have far-right wing extreme wealth authoritarian, militaristic, rights for only those global rich taking UK politics while CORBYN takes LABOUR PARTY to far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty MARXISM---- the DARK AGES did not have people with any rights except those global 1% and their 2%.
REAGAN most agree was AYN RAND FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN ----WE CALL IT NEO-LIBERAL ----same thing except PRETENDING to be REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
US RULE OF LAW has always required PROOF OF CRIMINAL action in this case RAPE. The mantra of NO MEANS NO has been the societal definition of RAPE in modern history.
'The so-called rape clause, which will be applied as part of new restrictions on tax credit entitlement, was added to legislation late on Wednesday as an amendment to an existing act. The plans will come into effect within a month'.
The UGLINESS of this TAX LAW mirrors what is happening in US Congress with TAX LAW. As all taxation of global corporations and the rich are eliminated, taxes on 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown---men and women WILL SOAR. As global 1% break down all social progressive laws including tax law----we see THERESA MAY feeling fine that a CHILD OF RAPE if kept by its mother not be credible for a child tax break.
THIS LAW IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING WOMEN OR CHILDREN TIED TO RAPE ---IT IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING MEN FOUND GUILTY OF RAPE---IT IS SIMPLY BREAKING DOWN SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LAWS TIED TO WOMEN----IN THIS CASE TAX BREAKS FOR CHILDREN .
'Theresa May says rape clause forcing victims to prove they were attacked is about 'fairness''
As we always say----the UK is a decade or two ahead of US in MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES in 99% of citizens' rights and wealth accumulation------when men are left impoverished with no ability to support themselves or family ----THEY SEEK EMPOWERMENT OVER WOMEN----this is history over thousands of years.
Tax credit ‘rape clause’ becomes law without parliamentary vote
Peter Walker Political correspondent
Thursday 16 March 2017 08.10 EDT
Controversial move, which requires woman who had third child as result of rape to verify her position, added to existing act
A controversial proposal to ask new mothers who have been raped for verification if they wish to claim tax credits for more than two children has become law without any debate or vote in parliament.
The so-called rape clause, which will be applied as part of new restrictions on tax credit entitlement, was added to legislation late on Wednesday as an amendment to an existing act. The plans will come into effect within a month.
Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP who first highlighted the issue of the clause, led a furious response, saying it was an “underhand parliamentary tactic” to introduce the measure without proper scrutiny.
She also described as “frankly astonishing” the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP ) had introduced the scheme apparently without having trained any of the people who will judge whether someone claiming the exemption has been raped.
The regulations, announced in the 2015 budget by the then chancellor, George Osborne, were put into law through a statutory instrument, a form of legislation that allows laws to be amended without parliament’s approval.
The policy coming into force on 6 April restricts tax credit entitlement for new claimants to a maximum of two children, with exceptions for multiple births and for women who could show that their third or subsequent child was conceived as a result of rape.
Those seeking to claim the exemption for rape must be assessed by what the government has described in a consultation as a “professional third party”, which could include health workers, police, social workers or rape charities.
With the regulation about to come into force, however, there is no indication of how a woman who has been raped could begin the process of claiming the tax credit exemption, or whether any of the third parties have been trained.
Thewliss said she had tabled a motion of prayer for annulment, a somewhat arcane version of the early day motion, in which a group of MPs sign a paper calling for a statutory instrument to be scrapped.
Such motions can be used to register displeasure with a government plan, but they rarely overthrow statutory instruments. According to Thewliss, the last time one was annulled in this way was 1979.
“Using such an underhand parliamentary tactic to railroad the rape clause into law is just the final insult this government could possibly dish out,” she said. “Not only did ministers sneak out their shameful consultation response as the eyes of the world were watching Donald Trump’s inauguration, but they’re now trying to put the rape clause on the statute books without a vote or debate, let alone any detailed scrutiny by MPs.
“The government must accept this policy is unworkable as well as immoral. With just days until nurses, doctors and social workers are expected to verify whether women had their third child as the result of rape, it’s clear there’s been no sexual violence training for those working with such vulnerable women.
“This is frankly astonishing, especially when you consider that the government is trying to railroad this through using medieval parliamentary procedures.”
The plan has caused worry among other MPs and women’s charities, with a number calling for it to be dropped. The DWP announced in January that it was to go ahead after the consultation.
The department has described the changes to tax credits as “a key part of controlling public spending”, and has pledged to implement the exemptions in “the most effective, compassionate way”.
A government spokesman said: “It’s absolutely right that we have the right exemptions in place and we have thought carefully about how we will work with charities and health and social care professionals to support victims of rape. We will be publishing guidance shortly.”
Those dastardly women claiming rape just to have more children for tax deduction need to be sent a message say global 1% far-right neo-liberals and neo-cons. In third world nations a woman is guilty if raped because she placed herself in the position of having a man rape her.........this is what creates fear in women of going out of the house----of being involved in business----and IT IS DELIBERATE.
In the eyes of right wing Republicans the working class or poor should not have children to support if they do not have a job. They think this even as they create the environment for stagnant economies ASSURING PEOPLE CANNOT HAVE JOBS. If you are poor you have no right to have children or a family.
As MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES create greater and greater unemployment in US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE----we will see 99% of of women falling into this category of having no ability to support children while 99% of men grow to hate this ideal of FAMILY------THAT IS THE GOAL OF MOVING FORWARD.
Now, here is TRUMP deciding winners and losers in tax credit policies. TAXES ARE UNIFORM SAYS US CONSTITUTION.......this is why a tax credit is universal to all citizens last century.
'The increase won’t be much help to low-income families
The clearest winners from the proposed changes to the child tax credit are single-parent families making more than $75,000 or two-parent families making more than $110,000'.
As the UK uses child tax credits to end what they think is RAPE FOR CHILD TAX CREDITS------our US far-right wing is simply PRETENDING to take care of those remaining middle-class. Oh, yeah those earning these wages -----just a decade or two from being those low-wage women with children they should not have since they cannot afford to care for them.
The right wing always wants to appear FAMILY VALUES while passing laws with goals of making it impossible for citizens to have families. The goal of MOVING FORWARD is for artificial intelligence robotics SMART CITIES to leave almost no employment opportunities for 99% of US citizens----all of which will be told NO FAMILIES OR CHILDREN FOR YOU!
The child tax credit could “make or break” the Republican tax plan
Trump says the Republican tax plan will help working families. This tax credit might be the only way it can.
By Anna North Oct 3, 2017, 9:00am EDT
President Trump speaking on tax reform in Washington, DC, on Sept. 29, 2017.
“We're targeting relief to working families," President Trump said last week of the just-announced Republican tax plan. "We will make sure benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners."
But the plan, at least as it stands now, looks like it would benefit the wealthy far more than the poor or middle class. That could be a deal breaker for some members of Congress, not to mention a problem for a president who prides himself on his ability to speak to a working-class base.
Enter the child tax credit. It hasn’t gotten much attention yet, but this part of the Republican tax plan is one to watch in the months to come. That’s because in order to pass their tax reform plan, Republicans will probably need to include a real benefit for working families, not just corporations and high earners. And expanding the child tax credit, long supported by religious groups on the right, may be the easiest way to do that. As Samuel Hammond, a poverty and welfare analyst at the Niskanen Center, put it, Republicans have somewhat inadvertently made the child tax credit “the center focus of tax reform.”
The Republican plan would increase the child tax credit.
Right now, parents can get a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child under the age of 17, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. If they owe more than that in taxes, it reduces their tax liability. If they owe less, they can get back the credit as a refund — in that case, they get no more than 15 percent of any earnings over $3,000.
That means to get the full $1,000 for a single child, a family needs to make about $9,700 a year. To get the full credit for three children, they need to make even more. Families making under $3,000 a year get nothing from the credit.
Families with high incomes don’t get the credit either. It starts to phase out at $75,000 annual income for single parents and $110,000 for married couples.
The Republican tax plan would increase the credit by an amount yet to be specified. It would also raise the income level at which the credit starts to phase out, meaning higher-income families could get more benefit from the credit.
The increase won’t be much help to low-income families
The clearest winners from the proposed changes to the child tax credit are single-parent families making more than $75,000 or two-parent families making more than $110,000. It’s not clear exactly how the Republican plan will change the income ceiling for the credit, but it is clear that some higher-income families will “go from getting a partial credit or no credit to getting a full credit,” said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Meanwhile, some low-income families won’t benefit from the plan, at least the way it looks now. The plan doesn’t change the amount of the tax credit that’s refundable, said Hammond, who’s working on a campaign to expand the child tax credit. That means that families that make enough money to owe taxes could see their liability reduced by more than $1,000, but families who don’t owe any taxes won’t get more than $1,000 back from the credit.
To really help low-income families, Maag said, lawmakers would have to make more of the credit refundable to poor families. They could do that by changing the refundability formula — say, by lowering the earnings threshold from $3,000 to $0, or by increasing the 15 percent phase-in rate (or both). About 11 million children are part of families with at least one working parent that don’t qualify for the full credit today, she said. And even increasing the amount families could potentially get as a refund won’t matter much to people who aren’t earning enough to get $1,000 per child now.
In 2015, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) released a tax reform plan that tied the child tax credit to the payroll tax, increasing the refundability rate above 15 percent. They are likely to push for greater refundability in congressional negotiations, said Joshua McCabe, a sociologist at Endicott College who specializes in taxation.
Republicans might have to change the child tax credit if they want their tax plan to pass
For both political and policy reasons, tax reform is unlikely to pass without changes to the child tax credit, said Hammond, who has worked with Rubio on his plan. On the policy side, there’s a general sense that in a tax reform this major, “you can’t have people just abjectly left out,” Hammond said. And the Republican plan “does nothing for the 35 to 50 percent of households that only pay payroll tax,” he said. “It’s just leaving out half the country.”
On the politics side, Trump “has always talked about the forgotten American worker,” Hammond said, and “the places where he has the base of his support are the sorts of places where people pay the majority of their taxes to the payroll tax system.” A plan that helps working families that don’t make enough to owe income tax would be a much easier sell for him than one that only benefits higher-income people.
Moreover, “every single major Republican tax reform has included a pro-family component,” Hammond said. Religious groups on the right have long supported the child tax credit, McCabe explained. If that credit isn’t generous enough in the Republican plan, Hammond predicts, “they will end up alienating their base” not just of working-class people but also of the religious groups that already support expanding the credit.
“I think the child tax credit will make or break” the Republican tax plan, McCabe said. Democrats won’t like provisions in the overall tax plan like removing the estate tax — which, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews points out, is “the most progressive component of the federal tax code, only paid by extremely rich estates.” But if Republicans can show their tax plan would truly benefit families, some Democrats “might hold their nose and vote for it.”
Upping the child tax credit alone may not be enough to get many Democrats on board.
The Republican tax plan as a whole looks like “a very, very big giveaway to the richest Americans” that will either drastically reduce government revenue or greatly increase the deficit, either of which will harm economic growth, said Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), the chair of the Democratic Women’s Working Group in the House. Slowing growth would be bad for working families, she added. While she doesn’t oppose an expanded child tax credit in principle, she doesn’t want to see it as part of a “poison package.”
Instead, she supports the Child Care for Working Families Act, a measure introduced by Democrats earlier this month that would increase wages for child care workers and provide federal subsidies to child care centers.
But at the very least, tax reform advocates will have to get their own party in line. According to Russell Berman at the Atlantic, Republicans plan to try to bypass Democrats and pass tax reform using reconciliation, which would allow them to pass a bill with only a simple majority. But that tactic hasn’t worked particularly well with Obamacare repeal, at least so far. And even some Republicans might hold out for a bigger child tax credit before supporting the bill.
Ultimately, Republicans — including Trump himself — are already promising that their tax plan won’t shift the burden from high-income to low-income families. As Dylan Matthews notes, it’s not clear how they’ll measure that, or what they’ll consider a success. But an expanded child tax credit will probably be an integral part of how they get there.
PRO-FAMILY for the far-right wing is that global 1% and their 2% who can afford to HAVE A FAMILY.
So, US TAX UNIFORMITY LAWS are again corrupted moving taxation protections to higher income ----moving Social Security and Medicare benefits (again payroll taxation laws) to access for only those same upper-middle class-----
Most FDR and War on Poverty Laws were aimed at WOMEN AND CHILDREN-----the dismantling of these laws MOVING FORWARD by both far-right wing global 1% CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS and Bush/Trump neo-cons-----are attacking the economic stability of US women.
CAN'T FIND EMPLOYMENT---NO SOCIAL SAFETY NETS-----NO RIGHTS NO FREEDOM----NO FAMILIES.
'Moreover, “every single major Republican tax reform has included a pro-family component,” Hammond said. Religious groups on the right have long supported the child tax credit',
Who is the URBAN LEAGUE/INSTITUTE/BROOKING INSTITUTE?
GLOBAL 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ----NOT 99% OF WOMEN. They are selling the FAKE POLICY that our upper-middle class are WINNERS---when they are very soon going into that impoverishment.
'but it is clear that some higher-income families will “go from getting a partial credit or no credit to getting a full credit,” said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center'.
We have been fortunate to be those upper-middle class for much of our adult lives----and WE KNOW any organization tied to BROOKINGS INSTITUTION as is the URBAN LEAGUE AND URBAN INSTITUTE is not providing public policy for anyone other than those global 1% and their 2%. Our 99% of US and global women REALLY need to fight for ALL WOMEN------not be fooled by FAKE WINNERS.
Senior Research Associate
I believe that we can work toward providing a strong safety net for all people—and that the tax system will always be an important part of that effort.
Elaine Maag is a senior research associate in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where she studies income support programs for low-income families and children.
Before joining Urban, Maag worked at the Internal Revenue Service and Government Accountability Office as a Presidential Management Fellow. She has advised congressional staff on the taxation of families with children, higher education incentives in the tax code, and work incentives in the tax code. Maag codirected the creation of the Net Income Change Calculator, a tool that allows users to understand the trade-offs between tax and transfer benefits, and changes in earnings or marital status.
Maag holds an MS in public policy analysis from the University of Rochester.
American Prospect is that far-right wing global 1% here we see 1995---right at the time CLINTON ERA was preparing to end all LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE FEDERAL oversight and accountability and open all social programs to massive looting, fraud, and corruption.
As we watch national and global media propagandize the intent of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GLOBAL WOMEN IN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES around the world----we watch as these same far-right wing global 1% work as hard as they can to END ALL THOSE SAME LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LAWS AND POLICIES that did indeed help women to be independent and care for children, seniors, and family.
THE SAME GLOBAL 1% KILLING US WE THE PEOPLE and our first world safety nets are selling overseas to global 99% of women that they are PROMOTING THE WELFARE OF GLOBAL 99% OF WOMEN.
If one were to go to that UNITED NATIONS WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION-----they would be those global 1% and their 2% of women PRETENDING they care for our 99% of US and global women.
We KNOW MOVING FORWARD is about population control-----finding ways to kill, isolate, stop reproduction of global citizens under the guise of SUSTAINABILITY======if global 1% has a goal of making 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE POOR-----then we all lose that right to bear children.
This is a long article---please glance through as it was right wing think tank back in 1990s Clinton era MOVING FORWARD these few decades.
When the goals of global 1% are MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, ECONOMIC STAGNATION as was the goal of Robber Baron few decades and now the goal of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES SMART CITIES-------it is ALWAYS the women and children who suffer most.
Do Poor Women Have a Right to Bear Children?
Christopher Jencks, Kathryn Edin
Winter 1995 AMERICAN PROSPECT
The current movement to reform welfare implies an uncomfortable thought: Perhaps poor women don't have the right to bear children. Are we really prepared to say that?
Affluent adults seldom consider the possibility that others may have to choose between accepting public assistance or dying childless. We prefer to believe that if everyone would act responsibly, they would all be able to support their children without government help. We are particularly keen on three forms of responsible behavior: delaying parenthood until you are in your twenties, getting married before you have children, and staying in school.
But even if everyone pursued these goals single-mindedly, a significant minority of the population still could not afford children without some kind of government help. When the Clinton administration unveiled its proposals for revamping Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), it said the plan "signals that people should not have children until they are ready to support them." Yet for many poor women, that time will never come. Sad to say, there are neither enough good jobs nor enough good husbands to provide every American woman with enough money to support a family.
Are we to assume that the losers in this lottery have no right to bear children at all? And, if not, are we really prepared to enforce this principle and all of its implications? These questions lie at the heart of the debate over welfare reform, yet neither liberals nor conservatives seem willing to face them squarely. Instead, they tell themselves fairy tales about how if everyone would just "play by the rules" they would all be able to support a family without government help.
Fairy Tale #1: If teen mothers simply held off parenthood until their twenties, they would have enough money to raise a family. TV commentators, magazine articles, and public service advertisements have claimed for years that teenage motherhood ("children having children") is a major cause of poverty. The administration apparently endorses this view, claiming that "welfare dependency could be significantly reduced if more young people delayed childbearing until both parents were ready to assume the responsibility of raising children." The fact sheet accompanying the administration's welfare proposals supports this claim with a dramatic statistic: 40 percent of current welfare recipients had their first child before their nineteenth birthday.
The administration is right when it claims that early childbearing is correlated with subsequent welfare receipt. But everyone knows, or ought to know, that a correlation of this kind is not sufficient to prove causation. Women who have babies as teenagers differ from those who wait in a multitude of other ways, many of which affect their economic prospects. To begin with, teen mothers tend to come from troubled homes. In an effort to separate the effects of family background from the age at which women became mothers, Arlene Geronimus from the University of Michigan and Sanders Korenman from the University of Minnesota compared sisters raised in the same family. They found that women who had had their first child while they were teenagers ended up only a little poorer than their sisters who had waited.
Family background aside, most teen mothers have also had trouble in school. Their grades and test scores have usually been below average, and they are more likely to have been in disciplinary trouble than women who delay motherhood. Many attend schools where below-average students are written off at an early age. Because of these problems, many teenage mothers quit school even before they become pregnant. When a teenager comes from a troubled family, has learned little in school, and has left school without graduating, she is unlikely to be economically self-sufficient no matter how long she delays motherhood.
Fairy Tale #2: If single mothers got married, they wouldn't need welfare. Those who see welfare dependency as a byproduct of irresponsibility argue that even dropouts with low test scores could stay off welfare if only they would marry before having children. Once again the correlation is clear. Women who have a child out of wedlock are at least three times as likely to need welfare as women who have their children while married. But that does not mean two-thirds of unwed welfare recipients could have made themselves self-sufficient by marrying the man who fathered their children.
If a would-be mother wants to stay off welfare, she has to find a husband who can pull his weight economically. Although the federal poverty threshold for a married couple with two children is currently about $15,000, a two-parent family in which both adults work and pay for child care needs at least $20,000 a year (and probably closer to $25,000) to cover its basic needs. (This estimate is based on studies of family budgets in four big cities, which we discuss in more detail later.) If family income falls below that level, the mother is usually better off on welfare, where she gets both Medicaid and food stamps and has no husband to support, no child care bills, and no work-related expenses. In families where both parents work, the man usually earns about 60 percent of the income. Thus, for marriage to make a mother better off than she would be on welfare, her husband must usually earn at least $12,000 a year. There are not enough men (or jobs) like that to go around.
In 1989, just before the recent recession, there were 22 million American women between the ages of 25 and 34. About 20 million of these women either had a child or wanted one. Fewer than 16 million men of the same age had annual incomes above $12,000. Some of these men were gay or reluctant to marry for other reasons. Others were philanderers, wife beaters, substance abusers, or child molesters. By traditional American standards the number of acceptable husbands was probably no more than two-thirds the number of women who wanted children.
Marrying a man with an unstable work history or low wages is not a good formula for avoiding welfare. These days more than half the women who marry such a man can expect their marriage to end in divorce; and when that happens their ex-husbands are unlikely to be either willing or able to pay much child support.
Fairy Tale #3: If teen mothers finished high school before having kids, they could get good jobs. Recognizing that marriage is no guarantee of economic self-sufficiency, American women have been staying in school longer and acquiring more specialized occupational skills than they did a generation ago. Nonetheless, only a minority can support children on their earnings alone. In 1989, a single working mother with two children needed about $15,000 worth of goods and services to make ends meet. Less than half the 25- to 34-year-old women who worked in 1989 earned that much.
The nature of this problem becomes clearer if we look at the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which began following a representative sample of 14- to 21-year-olds in 1979. At the beginning of the study, participants were given the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which measures vocabulary, reading comprehension, computational skills, and ability to reason quantitatively. When Gary Burtless looked at 25-year-old women who were getting AFDC, he found that 72 percent of them had scored in the bottom quarter of their age group on the AFQT. Half were also high school dropouts.
While high school dropouts with low test scores often found some kind of work, their wages averaged only $5.50 to $6.00 an hour (in 1991 dollars). Nor did their earnings rise as they accumulated more labor market experience. After adjusting for inflation, Burtless found that these women earned only 25 cents an hour more when they were 29 years old than when they were 21. Nor does earning a high school equivalency certificate (technically known as a Certificate of General Educational Development, or simply a "GED") seem to increase their earnings. Recent research shows that high school dropouts with a GED earn no more than those who lack one. Nor does the short-term job training that most states now offer welfare recipients boost their hourly wages--though it does help them find work, so the money is not wasted.
Women with low test scores who finish high school on schedule do earn $1 to $1.25 an hour more than those who drop out. But that does not mean today's dropouts would earn an extra $1.25 if they stayed in school. Much would depend on what they did with their time while they were in school. Adolescents are desperate for respect. Those who are not good at schoolwork usually find that the easiest way to maintain their self-respect, at least in the short run, is not to work hard but to define school as "irrelevant" and find friends who do the same. If a teenage girl does no schoolwork, it is hard to see how keeping her enrolled will make her more valuable to her future employers. Having a diploma may help her get a job that someone else would otherwise get, but if everyone stays in school this "sheepskin effect" will disappear. Keeping everyone in school for 12 years will only boost wages if it makes the former dropouts more productive, and productivity is unlikely to rise unless students are learning something.
How Much Money is Enough?
If a mother of two had worked 40 hours a week and earned $6 an hour in 1991, her income would have been just above the federal poverty line. Since millions of American families reported incomes below the poverty line, one might think that $6 an hour should be enough to support a family. In reality, however, that was seldom the case.
For the past few years Laura Lein and one of the coauthors of this article (Edin) have been interviewing poor single mothers in the Boston, Chicago, San Antonio, and Charleston (South Carolina) areas, asking them about their household budgets. Welfare mothers typically reported getting $565 a month from AFDC and food stamps. If we treat food stamps as cash, that puts their official income at 65 percent of the poverty line. But not one of the 214 welfare mothers Lein and Edin interviewed was living on her official income alone. All of them had additional income from unreported work, under-the-table payments from the fathers of their children, or gifts from boyfriends and relatives. This income, which averaged $311 a month, brought the typical welfare mother's budget to the poverty line. If we add in the value of what Medicaid spent on her family's health care, the figure rises to around 130 percent of the poverty line. If we include the value of means-tested housing subsidies, the figure is even higher. Yet almost all these mothers were struggling to make ends meet. Many were doubled up in someone else's home, getting by without a telephone, or going hungry at the end of the month.
The 165 working mothers whom Lein and Edin interviewed spent even more than welfare mothers, and they too were unable to live on their earnings alone. In addition to paying an average of $75 a month to get to work and about the same amount for Social Security, most also had to pay their own medical bills, since their employers seldom provided health insurance. Working mothers' actual outlays for doctors and medicine were relatively modest, because those with high medical bills almost always stayed on AFDC. But if all single mothers worked, their medical care would cost far more. According to some HMOs, it would cost around $300 a month to provide health care for the average AFDC family, which is roughly what Medicaid now spends for those without any certified disability.
The same logic applies to child care. Single mothers who earn $5 or $6 an hour cannot afford to pay market rates for child care. At present, therefore, those who cannot persuade a relative to watch their children or find subsidized child care seldom work. But if we want all single mothers to become economically self-sufficient, we have to assume that they will mostly pay market rates. Lein and Edin found many welfare mothers who wanted to work, but few who thought they could get free child care from a relative. That was one of the main differences between welfare recipients and single mothers in low-wage jobs, many of whom got either free or very cheap child care from their kin.
On Chicago's South Side, where child care is cheaper than in Boston but more expensive than in Charleston or San Antonio, day care centers typically charge $270 a month to watch a preschool child. Poor mothers would probably select centers charging less than the average, but licensed providers almost always charge at least $200 a month. After-school care for older children is only a little cheaper than all-day care for preschoolers. A welfare recipient who has two children under the age of ten, no relatives willing to watch them, and no subsidized care, must therefore budget at least $350 a month and often more.
These estimates suggest that if we want welfare mothers to pay their own way, and if they have the usual run of health problems, they will need another $800 a month on top of what they now spend to balance their budgets. That would bring the typical working mother's budget to $1,800 a month in today's money. Lein and Edin found that single working mothers generated close to $300 a month from absent fathers, boyfriends, and family members. Thus, if their needs were comparable to those of welfare mothers, they would have to earn $1,500 a month to get by without government help. If they earned less, as most do, they would need subsidized child care, medical care, or housing, food stamps, or cash from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Most Americans find all this hard to accept. Most of us see "dependence" as an inherently pathological condition. We badly want to live in a society where all people can "stand on their own two feet." Nonetheless, most of us admit that some cannot achieve this ideal. That is why we have disability benefits for the physically disabled, the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded. Our problem is that we define "disability" very narrowly. Americans can qualify for benefits only if a panel of experts agrees that they cannot do any work whatsoever.
For every schizophrenic who is completely out of touch with reality, there are half a dozen other adults who have trouble getting along with a boss or coworkers and therefore don't hold any job for a long period. Likewise, for every victim of Down's syndrome who cannot write her name, there are half a dozen others who can read and write but have trouble figuring out what their boss would want them to do in any unfamiliar situation. Such people cannot handle a job that entails much discretion or responsibility; they are employable, but they will be the last hired and the first fired. When the labor market is tight and no one better is available, someone will usually give them work. But in today's economy they are unlikely to find steady work that pays enough to support a family. When these people have children, they constitute the "hard core" of the welfare population. Many get off welfare, but they mostly return again. This is the group that will be hit hardest by a two-year time limit.
As long as America remains committed to competitive labor markets, open borders, and weak labor unions, most marginally employable adults will need some kind of public assistance if they have children. That leaves legislators with three choices: they can prevent marginally employable adults from having children, let them have children but give them no economic help, or let them have children and give them enough help to keep their children out of poverty.
Many welfare-bashers would like to prevent the poor from having children. They think most welfare recipients are irresponsible or incompetent parents living in communities that breed lawlessness and promiscuity. Perhaps equally important, they think of welfare recipients as black idlers who live off the labor of industrious whites.
But those who would like to prevent the "underclass" from reproducing have never devised a plan for doing this that stands a chance of winning broad political support. The problem is not that the public is deeply commited to the principle that everyone should be able to have children. Rather, the problem is that we cannot predict in advance which children might eventually need welfare. Nearly half the children on welfare in any given month were born to parents who were married at the time of their birth, and most of these parents had enough money to scrape by while they were married. If we tried to prevent married couples from having children until we could be sure that they would not need AFDC even if they separated, we would have to regulate the most intimate behavior of millions of married people. Not even the far right wants that. The politics of such a regulatory process would, moreover, be made even more explosive by the fact that the regulators would be mostly white while their targets would be disproportionately black and brown.
As we have noted, the odds that a couple will eventually turn to welfare rise sharply if they conceive a child out of wedlock. But some unmarried parents marry before their child is born, and others can earn enough to stay off welfare even if they do not marry. If this country were China, we might require all unmarried couples to use Norplant until they got a certificate of economic self-sufficiency. But such a scheme would not receive much support here. The right prefers to pretend that unmarried couples do not have sex, while the left opposes any policy that treats the poor differently from the rich. Besides, such a scheme would probably run afoul of the Supreme Court, which still recognizes the basic right to reproductive privacy set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Given these constraints, those who want the poor to have fewer children usually emphasize the importance of moral or cultural norms that discourage poor people from having children they cannot support. That is clearly President Clinton's stance. But while it may be possible to get the poor to delay childbearing for a few years by making the economic or social rewards larger, we find it hard to imagine that many poor women would voluntarily go to their grave childless.
Almost all humans enjoy sex.
Most women (and many men) also find infants extraordinarily appealing. Social engineers who seek to promote childlessness must therefore offer women an attractive alternative, such as becoming the bride of Christ or the head of a Fortune 500 corporation. Neither the Clinton administration nor the Republican party has anything of this kind to offer. A lifetime of minimum-wage work is certainly not likely to do the trick.
Even women who want babies may, of course, decide not to have them if the economic consequences are sufficiently grim. That is why legislators who want to discourage unwed motherhood try to cut AFDC benefits. No one is quite sure whether cutting AFDC works, however. Statistical analysis usually shows that when other things are more or less equal, states with low AFDC benefits have somewhat fewer single-parent families than states with high benefits, but the difference is seldom large and in some analyses it vanishes altogether. This pattern suggests that the proportion of single-parent families might have risen even faster over the past generation if legislators had not let AFDC benefits lag behind inflation after 1975. It does not suggest that welfare played a major role in the spread of single motherhood.
Nonetheless, some conservatives, such as Charles Murray, think that eliminating AFDC would help curb the trend toward single-parent families. To test this theory, it is useful to look at Mississippi, which has never offered more than token benefits and currently gives a single mother with one child only $96 a month. Despite such tight-fistedness, Mississippi's children are more likely to grow up in single-parent families than those in any other state. That is partly because Mississippi children are very poor and disproportionately black. But if limiting AFDC to $96 a month does so little to deter single parenthood, it is hard to see how eliminating AFDC entirely would do much more.
Murray's answer is that Mississippi also gives single mothers food stamps and Medicaid, which are worth far more than $96 a month. He wants to eliminate these programs as well. But what would this mean in practice? Would there still be hospitals and doctors that gave the poor free care, as there were before Medicaid was established? Or would doctors simply refuse to treat sick people who are poor? Hardly anyone favors the latter solution. But if the poor could still get medical care, why should changing the way we finance it deter poor women from having children? Eliminating food stamps poses similar problems. If we replaced food stamps with soup kitchens and food pantries, we would probably not deter many poor people from having babies. If eliminating food stamps meant that a lot of poor children went hungry, the electorate would vote in liberals who promised to bring food stamps back again.
Mississippi's experience suggests that we would need truly draconian sanctions to make a substantial dent in the number of adults who have children they cannot support. That leaves legislators with only two real choices. They can emulate Mississippi and offer poor parents minimal support--food and medical care but little else--or they can try to make sure that poor families' other basic needs are also met.
Most liberals prefer the generous approach, arguing that material deprivation does poor children permanent harm. We share this prejudice, but we have not been able to find much solid evidence that poverty per se harms children over the long run. We have not found any careful study of whether children who spend time on welfare do significantly better when they live in generous states. Many social scientists have shown that poor children learn less in school, leave school younger, commit more violent crimes, get worse jobs, and have more babies out of wedlock than affluent children. But once again mere correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate causation.
Adults are usually poor because no employer values their services.
If parents lack the skills that employers value, they are not likely to be good at helping their children acquire these skills. So when we find that poor children do badly in school, we have to ask whether this is because their parents do not feed them properly or because their parents cannot help them much with schoolwork. Likewise, when we find that poor children have more than their share of disciplinary problems at school, we have to ask whether this is because they are snubbed for not having the right sneakers or because their parents have always dealt with their misbehavior by yelling or slapping instead of explaining. At present, we do not have good answers to such questions.
Where does this leave us? Common sense suggests that generous government support for single parents is likely to have two offsetting effects on children. First, it is likely to help children in single-parent families. Second, it is likely to increase the proportion of children who grow up in such families, which is likely to be a bad thing. Unfortunately, neither common sense nor social science can currently tell us how large either of these effects is. That makes it impossible to say whether the net impact of generous support is positive or negative.
In the absence of persuasive evidence, both politicians and ordinary citizens rely on ideology to tell them what the facts are. Conservatives hate unwed motherhood more than they hate poverty, so they tell one another that the next generation of children would be better off if we made AFDC even less generous than it now is. Liberals hate poverty more than unwed motherhood, so they insist that the next generation would be better off if we gave single mothers more help.
Clinton's welfare proposals try to appease both camps. He wants to make most welfare recipients work after two years, which appeals to conservatives who think such a requirement would deter unmarried women from having babies. But Clinton also wants to ensure that single mothers who work end up better off than they now are on AFDC, which appeals to most liberals.
OH, REALLY? WHEN CLINTON CAME TO OFFICE TO OFFSHORE ALL US CORPORATIONS TO FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES OVERSEAS? NO WELFARE TO WORK ON CLINTON'S MIND IN 1990S.
Overall, this strategy probably made political sense at the time Clinton formulated it. Indeed, we advocated this general approach in the first issue of this journal ("The Real Welfare Problem," No. 1, Spring 1990). But the details of the president's proposals are no longer as important as the political climate in which Congress will rewrite them. That climate has obviously moved far to Clinton's right. Over the next few months conservatives will try to strengthen the proposed work requirement, and they will probably succeed. They will also try to curtail benefits for working mothers. They may well produce a bill that not only makes all single mothers work after two years but makes them worse off in a low-wage job than on welfare.
The table on page 50, "Will Work Pay?", shows what might happen to a welfare mother's disposable income given several different scenarios. The income and expenditure estimates are for Chicago, where AFDC benefits are close to the national average, and describe a mother with one preschool child and one school-age child. Since we have no way of knowing how many Chicago welfare mothers would be able to get free child care from relatives or how many would find subsidized day care, we include separate estimates for each possibility. We assume that children are in a licensed program but that former welfare mothers, being poor, will choose a program costing considerably less than the citywide average.
Our first scenario assumes that Congress passes no new health care legislation but that both children were born after 1983. That means both children still get Medicaid even if their mother leaves AFDC, so long as her income does not exceed the federal poverty line. In this scenario the entire family gets free health care if the mother stays on AFDC, the children get free health care if she takes a minimum-wage job, and no one gets free care if she earns $6 an hour. We assume that the mother's medical expenses are equal to what Medicaid now spends on the average AFDC recipient who is not disabled. This may be a bit misleading. Most working mothers will spend less than the average in most years. Every so often they will have a serious problem that costs a lot. If they have no insurance, Chicago mothers with serious problem will usually be treated at Cook County Hospital and may never pay the bill. In many cases, moreover, they will lose their job, making them eligible for Medicaid.
Our assumptions suggest that if a welfare mother can get free child care, taking a minimum-wage job will raise her income by about 20 percent, from $12,355 to $14,847. If she has to pay market rates for child care, she will have about 20 percent less money in either a minimum-wage job or a $6 an hour job than she has on welfare. The conclusion seems clear: if we do nothing to change our present system of health care financing, a single mother with two children has no economic incentive to take a low-wage job unless she can obtain child care. If she has only one child, she will do about as well working as on welfare.
The next two scenarios follow the Clinton administration's script. All low-income mothers get free health care. If they also manage to find free child care, they are much better off economically when they take a full time job than they were on AFDC. But the administration is unwilling to make any political enemies in order to ensure that poor mothers receive free child care. As a result, its proposal does not include enough new federal spending to reach this goal. Our fourth scenario shows that those who have to pay for child care and have only a minimum-wage job will end up a little worse off than they are now. Those who earn $6 an hour will, however, be a little better off. Those with only one child will also be a little better off.
One also can envisage proposals that fall between these extremes. Suppose, for example, that all children in families with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line get Medicaid. Working adults can all buy coverage through their employer, but they must bear the entire cost themselves. For women who take minimum-wage jobs, this scenario looks no different from the status quo: Their net income rises about 20 percent if they can get free child care and falls about 20 percent if they have to pay market rates. For women who take a job paying $6 an hour, however, this scenario looks considerably better than the status quo, because their children now receive Medicaid. It is important to recognize, however, that any health care reform that forces low-wage workers to buy their own insurance may make them worse off, since it will force them to pay a lot of bills that currently go uncollected.
It is also important to ask what will happen to women who cannot find a job after two years on AFDC. Under the administration's plan they will have to work in the JOBS program, which will offer minimum-wage work. Participants will receive free child care and Medicaid, but unlike those who work in the private sector they will not be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). They will also find it harder to do off-the-books work, since they cannot be two places at once. JOBS participants will therefore end up somewhat worse off than AFDC recipients now are. If Newt Gingrich has his way, JOBS itself may be time limited, or even eliminated.
For the least-employable welfare recipients, and for those whose child care options are unsually expensive or bad for the children, the human cost of these changes is likely to be substantial. First, more children are likely to be left alone during the day, increasing the odds that they will busy themselves with activities that are dangerous, illegal, or both. Second, more women will be driven into the underground economy, selling sex or drugs to make ends meet. Third, more women will live with men who help pay the bills but who also abuse them or their children.
Even before the elections it looked as if Congress might well pass a welfare reform bill so punitive that no compassionate person could support it. Now that looks even more likely. If Clinton were a more determined advocate for the poor, he might veto such legislation. But Clinton won conservative votes in 1992 by talking about "two years and off." That kind of talk helped create today's political climate, in which gradual and humane reforms are widely seen as fiddling while Rome burns. If Clinton is to run again, he will need a few victories over the next two years. The odds that he will veto any welfare proposal that reaches his desk therefore seem low. The last best hope for unskilled single mothers is therefore likely to be the Senate, where a liberal minority could use the threat of a filibuster to bargain for something approximating the administration's proposal. But welfare mothers have become so unpopular that Senate liberals may no longer be willing to defend their interests.
No matter what Congress does, single motherhood is not going to vanish. At most, it will become slightly less common. That fact poses a challenge for liberals as well as conservatives. Liberals need a new way of talking about single parents. Our rhetoric must recognize that children usually do better when they grow up with both their biological parents, but it must also be realistic about the reasons why so many parents fail to achieve this goal. We need to admit that single parenthood is a problem, but without encouraging the kind of punitive moralism that Americans find so seductive. On this score Clinton gets very low marks.
The way we talk about staying in school might provide a useful model for how we ought to talk about getting--and staying--married. Every American knows that attending college raises young people's chances of being able to support a family, just as getting married does. Children whose parents have not attended college do worse in school, get into more trouble with the law, and become less productive adults than children whose parents graduate from college, just as children raised in single-parent families do. Knowing all this, most adults urge children to finish high school and attend college. We also use public funds to subsidize such behavior. But when young people do not attend college, we do not tell them that they are immoral or irresponsible.
Nor does the president tell young people who have not attended college that they should not have children. Quite the contrary. When he was running for president Bill Clinton recognized that most Americans who had not attended college faced serious economic problems, and he talked about using public money to help solve these problems. His agenda included universal health care, expanding the EITC, more job training, and more subsidized child care. Only the EITC expansion passed. But subsidies for job training, child care, and health care are still generally accepted as legitimate devices for helping working Americans who are in economic difficulty.
The Clinton administration's commitment to these programs suggests that when it claims people should not have children they cannot support, it is looking for votes rather than trying to help the public think through a difficult political and moral problem. The administration knows that millions of Americans could not support their children without some kind of government help. When it says that people should not have children they cannot support, it just means that they should not have children if they will need help from one specific government program, namely AFDC. What that really implies, at least to this administration, is that people should not have children unless they are willing and able to take partial responsibility for supporting their children by working.
Combining single parenthood with a job is always hard. If a mother has limited skills and has trouble finding or keeping a job, this ideal will sometimes be unworkable. That fact does not discredit the ideal. It may well be important for every child to grow up in a family with at least one working adult. But we should recognize that some single parents may not be able to manage that much.
We also need to recognize that many conservatives have very different priorities. They think that women should only have children if they get married first. These conservatives might be willing to accept AFDC in roughly its present form if eligibility were limited to women whose marriages had broken down, and if benefits were tied to the family's previous earnings record, the way disability and unemployment benefits usually are. What they cannot stomach is the fact that women without husbands now have a right to bear children at public expense. Making government support for such women contingent on their finding a job misses the point. The truth is that many conservatives care more about "family values" than about the work ethic. They might be willing to help children born out of wedlock if they could do so without helping the parents, but they would rather not help anyone than subsidize illegitimacy. That is why so many conservatives are beginning to talk seriously about bringing back orphanages.
That position will probably win votes, but it raises a host of practical questions because there is no politically feasible way of limiting the right to reproduce. At present, America does not even bar adults from having a child when their behavior is so irresponsible that the courts have judged them unfit parents and have put their earlier children into foster care. A crack addict can lose her children, for example, but she cannot be deprived of her right to have more children.
If we are unwilling to bar crack addicts from having babies, it is hard to imagine that we will prevent people from having children simply because they cannot hold a steady job. Yet if we let the marginally employable have children, surely we have an obligation to meet these children's basic material needs.
SLATE.COM is a far-right Clinton neo-liberal media outlet FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT MEDIA.
What we see in US media and from all FAKE 'labor and justice' organizations is this idea that the women most effected by the dismantling of all REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE POLICIES providing safety nets for women, children, and families is hitting WOMEN OF COLOR----our 99% of black and brown citizens and immigrants ---we rarely see articles showing this is happening to our 99% of US white and immigrant women as WELL.
This is done deliberately to create the idea of WINNERS AND LOSERS. It is what creates that tension of RACE AND CLASS all far-right wing governance creates to keep extreme wealth extreme power in the hands of a few.
So, as 99% of women are made to feel they do not want to be LOSERS-----our 99% of men black, white, and brown have these few decades felt that our poor women have been winners living on subsidy rather than having a husband at home having a stable healthy family. We hear today those 5% men acting as if these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON FRAUDS and injustice were something our 99% of women could have changed.
IT TAKES OUR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE, BLACK WHITE, AND BROWN ---MEN AND WOMEN TO GET RID OF ALL 5 % POLS AND PLAYERS TO RETURN TO FREEDOM, LIBERTY, OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTHY FAMILIES FOR ALL THAT WISH TO HAVE THEM.
We have spoken in great detail about police state/failed state/mental health ----and who is driving all this-----REMEMBER---THAT 5% TO THE 1%-----who falls victim in an US city economy driven mainly by black market economies of drugs and violence? OUR 99% OF WOMEN
'A crack addict can lose her children, for example, but she cannot be deprived of her right to have more children'.
The Most Discriminatory Law in the Land
It was based on a racist stereotype of unfit black mothers. Today, family cap laws do nothing but punish the poor for being poor.
By Jamelle Bouie
Last April, Melissa Ortiz, a low-income mother of four, gave testimony to a committee of the California Assembly detailing her life on the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program, or CalWORKs, the state’s welfare program.
“When we first had the twins, the only person in my family getting aid was my oldest son,” she said. “We didn’t have money to buy them car seats to get home [from the hospital]. …We didn’t have money to pay for diapers, wipes, shampoos, and toiletries. … I am here to tell you that I am trying my best to be a great mom. I do not need to be punished for deciding to have children.”
Ortiz was referring to the Maximum Family Grant rule, a provision of CalWORKs that denies assistance to new children in families that received benefits 10 months before the child’s birth. Other states have similar rules, and broadly, they’re called “family caps.” Ortiz and other advocates are lobbying California state lawmakers to repeal these caps, which they argue are harmful and counterproductive. And they are: With four children, Ortiz received just $516 a month in aid from CalWORKs. “I had to go to charities, wait in line, and hope that the charities had diapers that day,” she writes, explaining the impact of family caps on her life. “I am constantly trying to pay just enough to not have [the utilities] shut off.”
For women like Ortiz, new children become a burden to carry—a threat to their livelihoods. But that was always the point. Family caps were designed to make life more difficult for low-income mothers, to thrust them deeper into poverty, and thereby discourage births. Thousands of families occupy the lowest rungs of American society because the state has punished them for having a child it didn’t want them to have. What’s more, in the 16 states where caps exist—including California, Mississippi, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona—the most affected women look like Ortiz, women of color who have been penalized based on a racist stereotype about their worthiness as individuals and fitness as mothers. Indeed, of all of our country’s discriminatory policies, family caps are one of the few that actualizes this prejudice into policy, and in the process, it echoes some the ugliest chapters of our past.
Thousands of families are desperately poor because the state has punished them for having a child it didn’t want them to have.
Twenty years ago, House Republicans issued their Contract with America, a concise description of their agenda for the next two years, should they win the majority. Republicans promised procedural reforms—open committee meetings and an audit for fraud—and substantive policies, from crime control to new tax cuts. The third item on their policy list was the Personal Responsibility Act, which would “discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased [benefits] for additional children while on welfare … to promote individual personal responsibility.”
The language is dry, but the object is clear. If elected to the House majority, Republicans would pass “family caps” and keep your tax dollars out of the hands of irresponsible welfare mothers who had babies for cash. In less inflammatory terms, the family cap was intended to create disincentives for mothers on welfare to have additional children, easing the public burden and providing the poor a path to upward mobility.
Of course, the policy was based on a myth, the idea of the sexually irresponsible “welfare queen.” In 1990, just 10 percent of households that received Aid to Families with Dependent Children—the precursor to today’s federal welfare program—had three or more children (most had two or fewer). Those figures were down from the 1960s, when 32.5 percent of such families had four or more children. In 2013, the Bureau for Labor Statistics noted that “average family size was the same, whether or not a family received assistance.” Public perception notwithstanding, there’s no difference in family size between those that collect welfare and that those that don’t.
Moreover, the notion of family caps presupposes that welfare recipients are somehow gaming their reproductive choices in order to gain the maximum return. It’s an absurd idea, as few people—of any income level—have the necessary time or sophistication to make that kind of calculation, which hinges on a web of federal and state regulations. And it’s even harder to believe that anyone who did would go through the challenge of pregnancy and childbirth for $40 or $50 more a month.
Not that this dissuaded conservative lawmakers. State caps began to appear in the early 1990s, with New Jersey and Arkansas adopting caps in 1992 and 1994, respectively. In 1995, true to their promise, House Republicans passed a welfare reform bill with mandatory family caps. In the Senate, however, Democrats joined with moderate Republicans to defeat the caps over the objection of Majority Leader Bob Dole, who warned, “If we don’t deal with out-of-wedlock births, then we’re really not dealing with welfare reform.” He continued: “The crisis in our country must be faced. Thirty percent of America’s children today are born out of wedlock. … Families must face more directly whether they are ready to care for the children they bring into this world.”
In the conference report, House and Senate representatives compromised with mandatory family caps and an opt-out provision, but President Clinton issued a veto, leading to a final bill—signed in August 1996—that omitted a cap requirement, but allowed states to use existing policies, adopt new ones free from federal regulation, or avoid family caps altogether. Of the 16 states that have a family cap policy today, most passed in the aftermath of welfare reform and the introduction of Temporary Aid for Needy Families, the current federal welfare program.
There’s little evidence that family caps work as advertised. What is unquestionably true is that they make poor families poorer. A 2006 report from the Urban Institute found that family caps increase the “deep poverty” rate of single mothers by 12.5 percent, and increase the deep poverty rate of children by 13.1 percent. It’s easy to see how this works. In Maryland, a state without family caps, the average benefit for a single-parent family of three is $574. If, while receiving that benefit, the parent had another child, it would rise to $695, a 17 percent increase. By contrast, in Virginia—where the benefit for a family of three is $389—it would stay the same (as opposed to growing to $451). And when you consider the generally low benefit levels of family cap states—in Georgia, the average monthly benefit for a three-person household is $280, in Mississippi it’s $170—what you have is a recipe for greater poverty.
Given the extent to which welfare families—like their high-income counterparts—have a hard time planning their pregnancies, this is little more than punishment for being poor. After all, we don’t have family caps for the mortgage interest deduction.
And, for all the ways these laws disadvantage poor families, they also fail in their purported mission of reducing family size. Several studies—including a 2001 analysis from the Government Accounting Office—have found no substantial relationship between welfare caps and a reduction in births. “Despite the political attractiveness of caps,“ writes researcher Michael Wiseman in a 2000 study on welfare policy and children, “there is little empirical support for expecting them to do much beyond reducing costs. By far the dominant conclusion of the literature on welfare effects on fertility is that such influences, though present, are small and uncertain.” And while a 2004 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that, in family cap states, “birth rates fell” and “abortion rates rose among high-risk women with at least one previous live birth,” this same pattern happened in states without a family cap, potentially reflecting the degree to which fertility declined among all American women in the later 1990s.
It’s an outrage, but it’s not a surprise. The case for welfare caps wasn’t built from a dispassionate look at outcomes for welfare families. It emerged from our beliefs and stereotypes around the kinds of women who receive government benefits: namely, low-income black women. In the popular imagination, writes legal scholar Laura M. Friedman in a 1995 paper, these women are “thoughtless child-making people” who get pregnant in order to collect money from the government. As such, childbirth by welfare mothers—then, as now—is seen as “undesirable, irresponsible behavior on the premise that people should not have additional children if they cannot afford to support them without governmental aid.”
With his stories of welfare cheats and abusers, Ronald Reagan maybe did more than any single individual to popularize this belief. But the best proof that this stereotype had purchase with nearly all corners of American society comes from the cover of the August 1996 issue of the New Republic. It offers a single image: A poor black woman, feeding a child while holding a cigarette, headlining an editorial titled “Sign the Welfare Bill Now.” The message is impossible to miss: Pass this bill before she breeds again.
Family caps, much more than welfare reform itself, are an extension of a racist stereotype. By ending the “incentive” of reproduction, goes the argument, caps would arrest the spiral of moral decline and pathology in poor black communities, and end the crime and poverty that presumably flows from black single motherhood.
As then-Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles said in 1995, “Illegitimacy has been exploding in this country. As a result, we have increased crime, we have increased welfare, and we need to break that cycle.” Or, as conservative scholar Robert Rector put in more gentle terms, “A ‘reform’ of the federal welfare system which fails to send a clear moral signal, which remains agnostic on the question of illegitimacy, and which simply allows states to ‘do their own thing’ with federal taxpayers’ funds—or do nothing—would be a disaster.”
It’s hard to escape the eugenic tint of these arguments. Indeed, when you situate family caps in the broad history of American policy and reproductive rights, it’s easy to see the connective tissue between eugenics and benefit cuts to stop “illegitimacy.”
At the turn of the 19th century, several states—Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Washington, and California—all passed or attempted to pass forced sterilization laws. In 1929, North Carolina passed “An Act to Provide for the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina,” which allowed sterilization for both “improvement of the mental, moral, or physical condition of any inmate” or “the public good.” Between 1929 and 1935, under the act, North Carolina sterilized 223 people. In 1935, following a challenge from the state supreme court, North Carolina established the Eugenics Board to provide due process for individuals condemned to sterilization.
Initially, the targets of sterilization were inmates and the mentally disabled. But over time policymakers and bureaucrats moved to the physically disabled and other groups. Wallace Kuralt served as welfare director in Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, from 1945 to 1972. During that time, Kuralt expanded the sterilization program to include the poor and destitute, with a particular focus on black Americans. In 1960, black Americans were 25 percent of the population in Mecklenberg. But between 1955 and 1966, noted the Charlotte Observer in a 2011 piece investigating Kuralt’s work, they made up more than 80 percent of those sterilized at the request of the Welfare Department.
“When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental, and social misfits in our midst,” wrote Kuralt in 1964, “the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare, and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?” Sterilization, he believed, would save tax dollars by reducing poverty among the “low mentality-low income families, which tend to produce the largest number of children.” Or, as he wrote in an unsigned editorial the same year, “[A]t the bottom of many welfare problems is the illegitimate child, the unwanted child in his most extreme form.”
Proponents of family caps in the 1990s didn’t claim that welfare families were irredeemably “unfit” and “feeble,” nor did they profess to see poverty as a product of innate deficiency. But the preoccupation with the reproductive behavior of the poor, the unsubstantiated belief that they’re a drain on public coffers, the focus on black American women, the cries against “illegitimacy,” and the calls for action are all reminiscent of the not-too-distant past.
Consider that the only exception to the family cap in the CalWORKs program is for births resulting from a contraception failure under an approved method: A contraceptive shot, an intrauterine device, or sterilization.* Put another way, women in CalWORKs have to choose between long-term or permanent contraception or risk becoming pregnant with a child who won’t receive state aid. California, it should be said, also has a long and dark legacy of eugenics—more Americans were forcibly sterilized there than in any other state.
Some states have ended the failed family caps experiment. In the last decade, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Kansas have repealed their caps, while other states have modified or revised their programs. And in January of this year, California state Sen. Holly Mitchell introduced a bill to repeal the state’s Maximum Family Grant. With wide support from groups like the ACLU, the Catholic Conference, and Planned Parenthood, it promised to end this discriminatory regulation and commit California to $200 million in additional benefits for poor families with children.
After passing the Senate Human Services Committee on a narrow 3–2 vote, it made its way to the Appropriations Committee, where it died, on account of its high cost. If it had been passed and signed into law, it would have reduced childhood poverty in the state by up to 7.4 percent. Supporters are crushed, but remain dogged. “The reproductive justice and anti-poverty advocates who have been working diligently to repeal this harmful and ineffective rule are sorely disappointed and surprised the bill didn’t make it out of committee, but we are not giving up,” said Shanelle Matthews, communications strategist for the ACLU of Northern California, in an email.
Given its size and influence, an end to family caps in California might prompt other states to re-evaluate their policies. And if nothing else, it would do a lot of good. As of April, nearly 250,000 families in the state are still subject to family caps. “One in six California children are living in poverty or something called deep poverty,” said Sen. Mitchell in a recent speech touting her bill, “Fifteen red states across the country have reversed their maximum family grant policy.” It’s time all states do the same.
'Police are already arresting around 420 men every month over child sexual exploitation across England and Wales, and the numbers continue to grow'.
What we have watched GLOBALLY these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and global human capital distribution is soaring abuses on our global 99% of women. As poverty grows---as it becomes long term----as men go to black market to create income----it is women who become the victims of that DELIBERATE US CITY STAGNATION OF ECONOMY as here in UK------so a CLINTON OR OBAMA global 1% neo-liberal with a HILLARY pretending to EMPOWER WOMEN GLOBALLY are a great big
LYING, CHEATING, STEALING NO MORALS OR ETHICS NO US RULE OF LAW NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW GLOBAL CRIMINAL CARTEL OF NIHILISTS.
Who is responsible for these conditions in UK? THATCHER/BLAIR/REAGAN/CLINTON. Who shouts globally that they EMPOWER WOMEN? Hillary Clinton and global 1% and their 2% of naked capitalism neo-liberal women.
The abduction of our young girls and young adult women to be used as prostitutes and thrown in global labor pool to become enslaved has been happening these few decades of ROBBER BARON FLEECING OF UK, US, AND EUROPE. These same numbers occur in US and yes, these are white women and children as well as our black and brown women. Why are women tied to addiction---well, we see women DOPED INTO PROSTITUTION right here in Baltimore MD USA.
As right wing global 1% call our 99% of women CRACK ADDICTED HAVING NO RIGHTS TO HAVE CHILDREN-----these same right wing global 1% are creating the societal economics DELIBERATELY PUSHING OUR 99% OF WOMEN INTO HARMS WAY.
London 'grooming gang' exposed as police warn abuse happening across Britain
Exclusive: Four teenage girls have so far reported being raped among 30 potential victims
- Lizzie Dearden Home Affairs Correspondent
Police believe they have exposed a new grooming gang in London as officers warn widespread abuse is taking place across the country.
Four girls between the age of 13 and 15 have reported being raped by a group based around a McDonald’s in Stratford, triggering a crackdown that has so far identified at least 30 potential victims.
Detectives believe the number will grow as they appeal for others to come forward, after arresting three boys and three men in Stratford.
Police are already arresting around 420 men every month over child sexual exploitation across England and Wales, and the numbers continue to grow.
Detective Inspector Laura Hillier, of the Metropolitan Police’s sexual exploitation team, said an operation codenamed Grandbye was launched after the four victims came forward separately in Newham.
“They had all been met by males at the McDonald’s on the Broadway in Stratford and been taken to different places where they were sexually assaulted,” she told The Independent.
“We think the scale of it is wider than initially thought – the number of victims could increase.”
Investigators say the Stratford Centre, which sits opposite Westfield and houses McDonald’s, is a “pick-up” point for grooming gang members seen congregating there with young girls.
They believe some are local to the area, but others have been drawn in from surrounding boroughs in northeast London by messages linked to criminal gangs offering gifts or money for drug running on social media.
“Some girls felt they were in a relationship but others were there to either make money or do a job in relation to drugs,” Ms Hillier said.
“Other girls are just there to meet up, then find themselves becoming victims of crime.”
Drugs and alcohol are frequently used by grooming gangs to incapacitate girls or coerce them into sex, with the criminality later discouraging victims from going to police.
There are several methods of grooming, with the best-known “boyfriend” model seeing an abusive relationship used to force victims into sex with others.
Children can also be trafficked, befriended online or – in the so-called “party model” – targeted by groups of men who lure them to gatherings with offers of drinks, drugs, money and car rides.
In high-profile cases such as Rotherham and Rochdale, gang leaders have been much older than their victims, but police say peer-on-peer abuse by teenagers from the same school or area is far more prolific.
Ms Hillier said although older men are involved, the boys used as a “hook” are of a similar age to the teenage victims.
Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the National Police Chief’s Council lead for child protection, said it was “broadly representative of what’s taking place across the UK”.
“I think grooming is taking place in towns and cities up and down the country,” he told The Independent.
“I think more children are being exploited because the volume of reports we are receiving just keeps on growing… and there are far more victims than there are offenders.”
The same warning has been sounded by campaigners including Rotherham survivor Sammy Woodhouse, who said she was receiving “a lot of new complaints” from areas not previously known for grooming.
She is campaigning for a law that would prevent victims being prosecuted for offences committed under duress – a move supported by police trying to combat under-reporting.
Mr Bailey said much of the abuse was associated with “county lines”, which sees criminal gangs expand drug dealing from cities into rural areas – frequently using children to run the contraband in efforts to evade police.
“There is a really strong link between drug trafficking and the sexual exploitation of both girls and boys,” he warned.
“The ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ are just one model of child sexual exploitation and not the most prolific.
“The most prolific is peer-on-peer abuse and one form of that is in a gang environment, with the exploitation of people who are wrapped up in drug trafficking and then abused.”
There are no known common racial or religious characteristics with the Newham case and officials have warned that focusing on one kind of perpetrator will cause abuse to be missed.
“It’s important to understand there is a real diversity between victims, perpetrators and how grooming happens,” said Carly Adams, a specialist in child sexual exploitation at the Children’s Society.
She also believes abuse is happening across the UK, telling The Independent: “I would be shocked to my core if there was a place not experiencing some form of sexual exploitation.
“Any areas claiming they don’t have a problem should have a look at what they understand sexual exploitation to be.”
The Children’s Society has specialist officers based in policing regions and is running prevention programmes around the country, including training security guards to spot grooming behaviour.
Other charities are bolstering police efforts to educate children about the risk, going into schools and encouraging parents to get “hands-on” about their children’s internet usage.
Police are also calling on companies to better monitor sites being used by groomers and advocating stronger age restrictions on extreme pornography linked to peer-to-peer sexual abuse.
The youngest suspects arrested in connection with Operation Grandbye are just 15 years old and the investigation continues.
A 34-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of rape and intent to supply cannabis and a 21-year-old was arrested and charged with cannabis possession.
Another 21-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of breaching bail conditions by being in the Broadway McDonald’s and a 16-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of robbery.
One 15-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of robbery and another for intent to supply drugs.
He was also served with a Child Abduction Warning Notice, which police say they are using in attempts to prevent sexual exploitation.
The notices are being issued to grooming suspects before any offence is proven, listing the potential victim’s name, age, photograph and a statement from parents or guardians saying they do not want the alleged abuser to approach them.
“We find them a good disruptive tool,” Ms Hillier said. “It’s a warning and from that we have been successful in proving to courts that perpetrators know a child’s age.”
Police have handed out the notices to several suspects in Stratford, while working to disrupt potential grooming by alerting with shop staff, giving out information and flagging girls at risk at multi-agency safeguarding meetings.
Ms Adams said that although awareness around grooming had improved dramatically, there was still a disparity in different areas of the UK.
“We’re doing better but we could be doing more,” she added.
The Metropolitan Police are urging people to look out for the following possible signs of exploitation:
- Young people who appear secretive by trying to hide where they are going and who they will be with;
- Young people who, although with peers, look uncomfortable or under duress;
- Adults befriending young people, including buying them food and drinks;
- Young people being picked up and taken to hotels, particularly at odd times of the day and night;
- Adults who frequently come into premises with different young people.
“We cannot tackle this issue alone,” Ms Hillier said. “We need the assistance of the public, calling in any concerns which could provide officers with the opportunity to intervene before any harm occurs.”
Anyone concerned is asked to call police on 101.
"British white men they tend to work individually. They tend to work online where they groom and they are the majority of perpetrators. When it comes to Asian men or Pakistani men they tend to do it in groups," Mr Afzal said'.
We will end this discussion on women and sexual abuse BECAUSE WOMEN ARE LOSING ALL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS so we do not make these issues the only ones we discuss in public policy as happened to our black 99% of citizens during OBAMA with police brutal and jail/prison rights. Women are more than simply SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
We shouted earlier against what we see as creating TENSIONS BETWEEN POPULATION GROUPS. Indeed, our developing nations whether Asia, Africa, Middle-East, Latin America come to Western nations with a cultural right wing conservative ideal of women and women's rights. What we know as well is this----our global 99% of immigrant men come to US wanting freedoms, liberties, stable system of justice and economy----just as all US 99% of citizens black, white, and brown ---men and women fought to achieve for 300 years.
Our 99% of men coming as immigrants will do nothing but harm toward achieving that freedom for themselves if they are bent on taking those freedoms from other citizens. MEN DO NOT WIN IN FAR-RIGHT EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY -------so work to protect women, children, family with freedom and liberty FOR ALL.
Below we see men have different ways of attacking women and children as sexual predators------Asian criminals tend toward gang exploitation where Western men are using social media and date groups towards this end.
WHO GETS CONVICTED FOR THIS BREAKDOWN IN WESTERN CIVIL SOCIETY? INDEED, CONVICTIONS HIT OUR BLACK AND BROWN MEN AS WHITE GLOBAL WALL STREET MEN HAND PROSTITUTES AROUND FOR PROFITEERING REWARDS.
We we know for a fact from a century of data research and study is this------most crimes of violence and rape and sexual abuse is that----are perpetrated on same race------we do not want ANY DEFLECTION from our white 99% of men for these same abuses ------
Grooming gang convictions '84% Asian', say researchers
A think-tank report finds there is a demographic link to those who sexually exploit children in grooming gangs.
13:55, UK, Sunday 10 December 2017
By Sally Lockwood, North of England Correspondent
British-Pakistani researchers have found that 84% of all people convicted since 2005 for the specific crime of gang grooming were Asian.
The Quilliam Foundation found that the demographic background of those who exploit youngsters in a paedophile ring was different to those who act in grooming gangs.
According to the most recent figures, released in 2012 by the National Crime Agency's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command (CEOP), 100% of child sex offenders in paedophile rings were white.
The report says CEOP, an official government body, identifies two types of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders.
Type 1 offenders were those that targeted their victims based on their vulnerability (roughly equivalent of grooming gangs), whereas Type 2 offenders target children as a result of a specific sexual interest in children (roughly equivalent of paedophile rings).
CEOP found that 75% of Type 1 offenders were of Asian ethnicity, whereas 100% of Type 2 offenders were white.
In a number of cities across the UK, gangs of predominantly British Pakistani men have been convicted for targeting vulnerable white young women and girls.
Questions have been raised about the connections between ethnicity and the offenders, and two British-Pakistani researchers from the Quilliam Foundation have said that the link is important.
The Foundation, a think-tank which usually focuses on extremism, has chosen to add its voice to the debate with what it describes as an evidence-based view.
Quilliam's researchers found 264 people have been convicted for the specific crime of gang grooming since 2005, and of those offenders 222 or 84% were Asian.
The report's co-author, Haras Rafiq, spoke to Sky News from his home in Rochdale, one town where members of a sex ring of predominantly British-Pakistani men were jailed for child sexual abuse in 2012.
"I'm from the heart of where one of the biggest high profile cases have happened over the last few years, and I'm saying it's very important that we do talk about it because the problem won't go away," he said.
"We didn't want there to be a pattern of people from our ethnic demographic carrying out these attacks. But unfortunately we were proven wrong."
The convictions of 17 men and one woman in Newcastle in August changed the debate after a judge said the grooming was not racially motivated
High profile cases like Rochdale have generated negative headlines about the Asian community.
The most recent case in Newcastle changed the debate after 17 men and one woman were convicted of nearly 100 offences, and the judge said the grooming wasn't racially motivated.
Following the judgment, Mike Penning MP wrote to the Attorney General calling for a review.
Nazir Afzal, who is credited with tackling the issue during his time as Chief Crown Prosecutor in the North West, warned the issue of 'Asian' grooming gangs is being used as a recruitment tool by the far-right
Mr Afzal also warned gang grooming was not the most common form of child sexual abuse.
"British white men they tend to work individually. They tend to work online where they groom and they are the majority of perpetrators. When it comes to Asian men or Pakistani men they tend to do it in groups," Mr Afzal said.
The public policy passed during OBAMA with Clinton neo-liberals wanting US WOMEN to be eligible for the MILITARY DRAFT-----is MOVING FORWARD far-right wing authoritarian, militaristic DEEP REALLY REALLY DEEP STATE where all employment is tied to security, policing, military and 99% of women seek safety in being WARRIORS---VALKYRIE. As we see more and more SPORTING EVENTS tied to women as WARRIORS we are MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES where life is one long battle -------
Today's fight for 99% of US WOMEN was tied to OBAMA'S and Clinton neo-liberal dismantling of all FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT LOAN process tied to EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS student loans for any 4 year university----relegating 99% of women to LOW-INCOME VOCATIONAL K-CAREER APPRENTICESHIP kills our future women breaking the glass ceiling.
Varien - Valkyrie (ft. Laura Brehm)
This is a lyrics video. I am not associated with Monstercat,…
The REAL LEFT social progressive policy for 99% of women is opening military service for those women WANTING THAT PATHWAY keeping them safe from predators from their own TEAM USA.......and as well making sure these militarized jobs are not the only pathway to employment.
U.S. Naval and Military Academies See Rise in Sexual Assault
Reports of abuse on military college campuses may reflect larger issues of conduct among the armed forces.
- Aria Bendix
- Mar 16, 2017
Reports of sexual assault increased last year on two out of three military college campuses in the U.S., according to data recently obtained by the Associated Press. Reported instances of sexual misconduct also spiked across all three military academies.
The two campuses that experienced a rise in reported assaults—the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York—also saw the largest increases in sexual misconduct. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado saw a slight decrease in reported assaults, from 49 in 2015 to 32 in 2016.
Overall, reported assaults across all three campuses fell from 91 in 2015—a 54 percent increase from the previous year—to 86 in 2016. (For perspective, each academy has around 4,000 to 4,500 students.)
For the last few years, Pentagon and military officials have attributed the rise in assault cases to students feeling more confident and safe reporting such instances. And yet, even when military students were surveyed anonymously, the data show an increase in unwanted sexual contact since 2015, with 12 percent of women and 2 percent of men having endured some form of sexual misconduct.
Issues of sexual assault and misconduct are nothing new for the military. According to a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense, over 20,000 active members of the military were sexually assaulted in 2014. Reports of sexual assault were also significantly higher in an active-duty environment than in the military reserves.
“Bottom line is that if this were an easy problem, we would have solved it years ago," Nate Galbreath, the deputy director of the Pentagon’s sexual-assault prevention office, told the AP last year. “Unfortunately, this is a very hard problem to solve.” This year, Galbreath said the Pentagon has been encouraging military academies to stress the importance of proper conduct and teach students to intervene if they spot a problem.
When my colleague Emily DeRuy spoke with Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson, the superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, last year, Johnson identified a similar priority. Unlike some of her predecessors, Johnson was making a concerted effort to introduce conversations about sexual assault onto the Air Force campus.
But the biggest concern among military officials isn’t always a lack of dialogue. In conversation with the AP, a few officials expressed frustration with prevention messages getting lost in the quick turnover of students. “This is almost a new population of folks every four years and that makes it a little bit more difficult for the messages to build up and gather momentum,” Galbraith said.
Whether or not turnover is the issue, it’s clear that efforts to prevent sexual assault on military college campuses haven’t had the desired effect. Perhaps this is because officials still struggle to address the main question at hand: Why are these assaults happening in the first place?